2. Whilst you may critique ideas, you may not attack or smear members who ascribe to such views, or who are perceived by you (rightly or wrongly) to be holders of those views.

Has anyone else noticed a recurring undercurrent of far-right sentiments and views cropping up in discussions here on DW, even in discussions which are not political in nature, such as Dhamma discussion regarding Right Speech?

Although I do not believe those involved regard themselves as "Alt-Right," and they should not be labeled as such, the following sums up a lot of what I have noticed lately:

... the whole point of the Alt-Right as the current it has become only is to be against things – against Leftist things that to some appear as excessive emphasis on equality, unreasonably high standards of tolerance and an overly suffocating sensitiveness. Above all, perhaps, the Alt-Right is a reaction against the nauseating moral high horses the Left has ridden for far too long. It simply suffices to point out the fact that such notions are the only things all those Alt-Righters seem to agree upon, it’s actually their primary preoccupation. If you don’t believe me, take a look at a random Alt-Right forum on the internet: 90% of everything consists of outcries against people considered unreasonably demanding regarding political rights, inappropriately vocal about social injustices and overly critical of oppression. That’s the Alt-Right in a nutshell – basically, a movement about being offended about others being offended.

There have been recurring posts claiming, for example, that media reports about the plight of Rohingya Muslims are "fake news." There have been recurring posts about how George Soros somehow is an evil mastermind behind a leftist conspiracy.

Part of what seems to be happening here is the personalization of politics, as discussed in this article: How Did Politics Get So Personal? One point the article makes is that often, it seems that "“liberals and conservatives in the same country think as if they were from different cultures.”

I have hoped that this DW forum was devoted to discussion of Dhamma. I hope I have not wandered into a forum which is more guided by political views than an aspiration for Right View.

News Rule #5 wrote:We do understand that politics can be an emotional or disruptive subject for some people. Therefore if you wish, you may voluntarily opt out of the News section by following the instructions here. Because participation in the News, Current Events & Politics section is entirely optional (and won't even show up in your "Active Topics" search, if you opt out), please refrain from meta-discussion in the form of complaining about the existence of such topics here at Dhamma Wheel. If they are burdensome to you personally, simply opt out.

Failure to abide by the rules and standards specific to this forum may result in access to the News, Current Events & Politics forum being revoked.

L.N. wrote:Has anyone else noticed a recurring undercurrent of far-right sentiments and views cropping up in discussions here on DW, even in discussions which are not political in nature, such as Dhamma discussion regarding Right Speech?

Yes, more than 1-2+ years ago that's for sure.

But what is your goal here with this thread? It's clear to me that this forum's caretakers are firm in not seeking to change the status quo. So besides inviting more political argument and contention, I'm not sure what the purpose of this thread is.

Has anyone else noticed a recurring undercurrent of far-right sentiments and views cropping up in discussions here on DW, even in discussions which are not political in nature, such as Dhamma discussion regarding Right Speech?

I see lots of political-contentious topics being created by a user by the name of L.N.

It depends on what you're looking for or what sticks out to you, possibly with attachment or aversion. I see lots of views here along the spectrum from far left to far right and everything in between.

One of the characteristics of creating a stereotype is that of not noticing (either consciously or sub-consciously) things (such as views) that agree with yours while noticing those that are opposed to you in greater detail and consideration. Or put another way; ignoring those cases which don't fit your preconceived view and only noticing those cases that fit your view, thereby, creating the stereotype.

L.N. wrote:Has anyone else noticed a recurring undercurrent of far-right sentiments and views cropping up in discussions here on DW, even in discussions which are not political in nature, such as Dhamma discussion regarding Right Speech?

Yes, more than 1-2+ years ago that's for sure.

Probably true, yes. At one (thankfully short) period of time, around the time you mention, even daring to disagree with left-wing Engaged Buddhism would get you banned or suspended.

Now, we've explicitly amended the ToS to indicate that staff respect the intellectual and spiritual autonomy of members, which includes their right to hold whatever beliefs they hold, and their right to express them in the appropriate topics/sections, so long as they're not violating the ToS.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

I see lots of political-contentious topics being created by a user by the name of L.N.

False. I have created topics regarding Right Speech in the Sila section. These Topics have been invaded by people who apparently think discussing Right Speech is equivalent to advocating a liberal PC agenda. I do not understand why we can't be nice to each other across the board, and especially in the Sila section.

It depends on what you're looking for or what sticks out to you, possibly with attachment or aversion. I see lots of views here along the spectrum from far left to far right and everything in between.

That may be, however there appears to be a disproportionately large emphasis on far-right themes and discipline against those who do not appear to agree with far-right views. Whether I or anyone is motivated by attachment or aversion is off-topic, and also is playing the person, not the ball.

One of the characteristics of creating a stereotype is that of not noticing (either consciously or sub-consciously) things (such as views) that agree with yours while noticing those that are opposed to you in greater detail and consideration. Or put another way; ignoring those cases which don't fit your preconceived view and only noticing those cases that fit your view, thereby, creating the stereotype.

Right, we should avoid this. How is this comment of yours on topic?

It's fine for people to have far-right views. I have close friends and family with far-right views. I just find it odd that on this DW forum, the far-right views are given such prominence at the expense of those who may not agree, and anybody (such as myself) who points it out is scolded and psychoanalyzed.

The problem is that this conduct most certainly turns people away from what otherwise could be valuable Dhamma discussion. I don't see the skill in politicizing discussions about Right Speech. All we have here is speech. There is no reason for the personal recriminations and questioning the character of those who happen to disagree with you.

I don't expect anyone to change. I realize you can and will run this board as you wish. You have no idea how many people like me have come and gone without saying a word. What would you rather have: (A) a platform to discuss Dhamma; or (B) a platform to promote some political agenda and attack those who seem to have a different political orientation? I would choose the former (A). It appears here there are a substantial number who prefer the latter (B). You can do what you want and ban people again for political speech. Your choice.

L.n.,
Where are buddhists who hold far right political views and who believe in engaged buddhism supposed to go to express/discuss their views?
chownah

Why can't people with views on the far right or far left discuss here without calling into question the character of anyone who disagrees? Some of the discussion here is just baffling in its hostility and unfriendliness.

Lots of anti-Muslim stuff. Lots of George Soros conspiracy theory stuff. Lots of accusations of "fake news" against traditional media outlets, followed by citations to far-right opinion articles or other non-MSM sources. Etc. It is fairly obvious. People who disagree, even mildly, often are scolded by the admin team and others.

Lots of anti-Muslim stuff. Lots of George Soros conspiracy theory stuff. Lots of accusations of "fake news" against traditional media outlets, followed by citations to far-right opinion articles or other non-MSM sources. Etc. It is fairly obvious. People who disagree, even mildly, often are scolded by the admin team and others.

george soros? until now I have only a vague knowledge of his name and it isn't from here can you show examples and explain them?

some news is sensationalised and opinion pieces rather than accurate reporting. if it is not this you are refering to can you show examples of accurate reporting being classed as fake news?

If by "scolded by the admin team" you mean sanctions are brought against members who disagree? then non-sense. if you mean people who happen to be mods and admin engage in topics then please show examples of them scolding.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

L.n.,
Where are buddhists who hold far right political views and who believe in engaged buddhism supposed to go to express/discuss their views?
chownah

Why can't people with views on the far right or far left discuss here without calling into question the character of anyone who disagrees? Some of the discussion here is just baffling in its hostility and unfriendliness.

This is another matter entirely. The topic is about the predominance of far right political views and it seems that you are now talking about quality of discussion....two entirely different things and it is wrong to conflate them. Not all far right politicos engage in perverted discussion.

It does seem that in the usa the far right engages in questionable discussion techniques and I could explain why but it would just raise a howl by many here and not accomplish anything. If you look at the segment of the population that the far right shock jocks appeal to and think about what human characteristics might be in play on both the presenters and the audience it might become clear.....knowing a bit about the history of far right politics in the usa at the grass roots level helps too.
chownah

Honestly, you are going to get people's hackles up by labelling them 'alt-right' and 'far right'. Simply having right wing views does not make one alt-right, nor far right. In fact there's a good argument to be made that contemporary mainstream left-wing views are far more extreme relative to the historical centre than contemporary right wing views.

For example, Marxism is today held up by many as a worthy and ethical system to hold to, and Nazism the opposite, despite the former being the basis for >5x the 20th Century death count of the latter.

"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.'" - Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta

Why can't people with views on the far right or far left discuss here without calling into question the character of anyone who disagrees? Some of the discussion here is just baffling in its hostility and unfriendliness.

For one, this is just the usual mode of discussion between those two sections/parties. If you watch a discussions between a right-wing politician and a left-wing politician on tv, they are hostile to eachother (although one probably more than the other). This is simply how the left-right dynamics works, anywhere.

As for this phenomenon on this forum, I don't think this has much to do with one's actual political affiliation, but with something more fundamentally psychological, in the sense that there are aspects of Buddhism that overlap with some specific psychological traits which tend to be more predominant in people who affiliate themselves with right-wing political parties.
To begin with, one such prominent feature common to both RW and Buddhism is seeing the world as a hostile place and life as a battle for survival. This reflects on how people handle social situations.

If you google "right wing psychology", you can find that there exist many studies about this topic. As someone familiar with Buddhist doctrine, it shouldn't be too hard to find the commonalities.

The phrase "right-wing" in right-wing authoritarianism does not necessarily refer to someone's politics, but to psychological preferences and personality. It means that the person tends to follow the established conventions and authorities in society. In theory, the authorities could have either right-wing or left-wing political views.[17]